Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the June 2010 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16299/10]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he has received an agenda for the meeting of Eurozone heads of State and Government to be convened by the EU President around 10 May 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17905/10]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 3: To ask the Taoiseach his priorities for the June 2010 meeting of the European Council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18794/10]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome of the summit of Eurozone political leaders on 7 May 2010 [18908/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the recent summit meeting of the Eurozone Heads of Government to discuss the aid package for Greece; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20001/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.

I attended a meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area in Brussels on 7 May. The meeting was convened by the President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, following the agreement reached by Ministers for Finance of the eurogroup on 2 of May regarding provision of financial support to Greece.

The meeting of Heads of State or Government of the euro area took place amid growing uncertainty and speculation in the markets. At our meeting we took a number of important decisions in order to safeguard financial stability in the euro area as a whole. These are set out in the statement issued at the meeting. I will mention the key elements briefly.

First, we agreed to activate the provision of funding support to Greece in a joint package with the IMF of €110 billion. Greece, for its part, reiterated its determination to implement an extensive programme of reforms. Second, we agreed on the need for continued fiscal consolidation to ensure that targets are met. In Ireland's case that means continuing with our plans to bring our deficit back to less than 3% by 2014. Third, we reaffirmed our support for the European Central Bank in its actions to ensure the stability of the euro area. Fourth, we agreed that the European Commission should immediately bring forward proposals for a European stabilisation mechanism to preserve financial stability, for finalisation by an extraordinary ECOFIN meeting on the following Sunday. That has since happened. Fifth, we decided that further measures to strengthen governance of the euro area, including strengthening the Stability and Growth Pact should be developed and agreed, in the context of the work of the new taskforce which the Spring European Council agreed to establish. Finally, we confirmed that we need to see rapid progress in the area of financial market regulation and supervision, and will return to these issues at the full European Council meeting on 17 and 18 of June.

This is an extensive package of measures and decisions, reflecting our collective determination to protect our currency and ensure financial stability in the European Union. I have received a draft annotated agenda for the June meeting of the European Council. The other issues scheduled for discussion are: Europe 2020 - A New European Strategy for Jobs and Growth; the G20 Toronto Summit; the UN millennium development goals; and climate change. In addition, there will be a presentation by Felipe Gonzales, chairman of the Reflection Group looking at the longer term issues for the European Union. The meeting will also be asked to endorse the Council's conclusions on the evaluation of the implementation of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Can I ask him to confirm that Ireland, despite what some commentators have said in the recent past, has no intention of leaving the euro? Can he clarify whether the European Commission has suggested that the winding down of Anglo Irish Bank over a 20-year period should be contemplated or considered by the Government? Has there been any contact from the European Commission in that regard? In view of the comments of Commissioner Rehn, has there been any contact with the Government to the effect that further spending cuts should be imposed this year?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These questions deal with what happened at the recent European Council meeting on 10 May and the agenda for the next Council meeting in June. Anglo Irish Bank did not come up at either meeting. I was asked about the European Commission. The Deputy will be aware that the Van Rompuy task force held its first meeting last week. It will furnish a progress report on the basis of the meetings it intends to have between now and the June Council meeting, at which the matter will be discussed further. If the Deputy has examined what Commissioner Rehn said, he will know that the Commissioner was very complimentary about the route Ireland has taken since these difficulties first arose. Since then, we have received no formal or informal contact regarding our own plans. We have been complimented as an example to be followed by others who find themselves in our position. The question of accelerating fiscal consolidation according to national requirements has been particularly addressed to those who engaged in a fiscal stimulus in 2008. Those who had an exit strategy for 2011 have been asked to bring that forward. We did not have any room to manoeuvre in that respect. Therefore, that did not apply to us. The fiscal stimulus we have provided to the economy relates both to the level of spend engaged in but also the capital investment programme which remains approximately twice the European average.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Commission has just published its proposals for banks to pay into a fund to ensure recent events that arose will not happen again. Has the Taoiseach seen these proposals? Will the Government support them?

European governments considering their economic and fiscal positions are set on a trend of deficit reduction. Will the Taoiseach agree that if this were applied by individual EU governments, it would not deal with programmes for investment in infrastructure which would make countries more attractive for job creation and investment? At the June Council, will the agenda contain a serious investment programme for EU member states to stimulate growth, to create jobs and, thereby, grow European economies while governments take their respective individual actions in deficit reduction?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No. The primary means to establishing and maintaining growth in the European economy is to show determination in reducing deficits because public debt is far too large. Unless this is done, then the prospect of capital being provided to Europe or it being seen as a good location for investment will be compromised.

We have to see a consolidation in the public finances of all member states. The financial markets have been volatile in this regard. A determination by member states to address issues such as bringing deficits under control and public expenditure, which come under their control, is a critical factor in avoiding a strong rise in interest rates that would occur if such action were not taken. That itself would be a major break in growth.

The task force on economic governance at its first meeting set out four objectives to which Mr. Van Rompuy referred. The first is the need to achieve greater budgetary discipline and not to provide for stimulus packages, which would strengthen and make the Stability and Growth Pact more effective. The second priority is the need to find the means to reduce the divergences and competitiveness between member states, at least when these divergences are too large. This is necessary for more even economic development in the Union and, in particular, the eurozone. The third objective is the need to have an effective crisis management mechanism to deal with problems such as the current ones in the eurozone. The fourth objective, linked to the third, is the need to strengthen institutional economic governance to act quicker and in a more co-ordinated and efficient manner in dealing with problems when they arise.

The conclusions are not about providing further fiscal stimuli packages. They are about the need to show a determination to consolidate budgets in the interest of member states and European growth. Otherwise, the prospects of growth will recede.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

By any standards, this May has been an active month in respect of European economies and Europe's overall financial position. Does the Taoiseach expect the June Council to review May's developments including the Greek package, the €750 billion stabilisation package and some of the proposals from the Commission? On 12 May, the Commission issued a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the Central Bank and various other organs of the European Union. This was the document which raised concerns that individual member states would have to pre-submit budgets for evaluation by other Finance Ministers and the Commission in advance of being presented to national parliaments. What is the Taoiseach's understanding of the status of this document? Is it intended that the Council will consider it? Where does the Taoiseach see the document going?

What is the Taoiseach's view of the decision or announcement by Chancellor Merkel last week in respect of the banning of short selling and the ban on credit default swaps, which has caused a certain amount of unease in the markets? Was any notification given by Chancellor Merkel to member states, including the Taoiseach, of her decision on the matter? Does the Taoiseach anticipate that it will be discussed at the June summit?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the activities that have been going on and when the next reporting mechanism is available. It will arise at the June Council in terms of considering a progress report from the Van Rompuy task force deliberations on economic governance, which will be discussed. There will not be a review of the decisions taken at the European Council or by ECOFIN subsequently in the sense that those matters will be reviewed. That is our position. The mechanism is in place and will be available should members states require it. Obviously, everyone is striving to ensure that it does not become operational. The Greek case was a particular issue that had to be dealt with separately, but the turbulence of markets has meant that wider confidence-building measures had to be communicated. These emerged from the meeting of the European Council and, subsequently, ECOFIN. They will remain in place and are not for review in that sense.

Deputy Gilmore asked about the status of the Commission document. The Commission made its proposals on reinforcing economic policy co-ordination in its communication. They form its contribution to the debate now taking place in the task force meeting and this has begun the process of discussion of all of these issues. The communication had been planned for some time but it has heightened importance given the recent emergency commitments given to safeguard financial stability in the euro area in light of the budgetary crisis in Greece. In view of the events of recent months, it is hardly surprising that the Commission would bring forward recommendations in this area. Indeed it is clear that, notwithstanding the current crisis, economic and monetary union will entail both broader and deeper fiscal surveillance than in the past. Exactly how that should be achieved is yet to be determined.

The Commission's document is a starting point for discussion. It will feed into the work of the Van Rompuy task force, which the European Council agreed to set up when it met in March and which has now begun its deliberations. It is important this next stage of work is carried out calmly, rationally and carefully without a rush to premature judgment or over-the-top reaction. Much of the initial comment about the Commission's communication has been ill-informed or inaccurate. Morgan has wrongly treated the communication as if it has already entered into force.

We will participate fully in the discussion of the communication and the wider discussions on the financial stability of the EU and the eurozone, into which this communication now serves as a useful input.

The Commission communication notes that member states need to pay down public debt faster than before, when times were better. Easy credit, it stated, led to underproductive investment and excessive consumption. Public debt has greatly increased since 2008 due, in part, to taking on financial sector liabilities. The competitiveness differences that emerged in the euro area was one cause of the current crisis it identifies. It also refers to the need to consolidate to keep down long-term interest rates to boost growth potential, a point I made earlier to Deputy Kenny.

It proposes a number of elements, including greater effort to reach the 3% deficit and 60% debt Maastricht criteria and, possibly in the case of inadequate fiscal policies, interest bearing deposits that can be redeemed when targets are met and the withholding of Structural and Cohesion Funds for poor performers. It recommends greater emphasis on the correction and avoidance of macroeconomic imbalances in the euro area. This could involve recommendations on competition policy, weight-setting behaviour, private sector credit growth and the European semester starting in 2011, so that budgetary and structural policies are peer reviewed earlier in the year, before rather than after as is currently the case. This could, potentially, mean the recommendation to look at budgetary plans that they consider insufficient and a standing crisis resolution mechanism for the euro area involving strict conditionality, with assistance provided by way of above average interest rates.

This document is a useful input to discussion. It is not an end point in itself. It is important that the next stage of work will proceed through the Van Rompuy task force procedure.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also asked the Taoiseach about the decisions and statement made by Chancellor Merkel during the week. Perhaps he might return to that. When he does so, will he state his view on the alarming statement by Chancellor Merkel that the single currency was facing an existential crisis? I believe that was the term she used.

Connected with that, I saw a report in a Sunday newspaper suggesting that some Ministers were privately welcoming the weakening of the euro. I can appreciate that changed exchange rates give our exports a competitive advantage but I was surprised to see what appeared to be authoritative and fairly direct quotations from Ministers in a Sunday newspaper regarding their views on the present value of the euro. Will the Taoiseach comment on that?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot comment on unattributed statements by anyone. We need a more stable exchange rate. It helps people to plan better and allows investors to make long term decisions. It is a far better situation than the fluctuations we are seeing at present. That volatility is not helpful. It does not allow for orderly progress in developing trade and increasing prospects for everyone. We want to see a more stable exchange rate situation develop. That can best be achieved when the worldwide currency imbalances are rectified. That, in turn, requires work at global G20 and other forums outside our direct control. We are supportive of anything that would assist in bringing overall global stability and the prospects for world growth to be maintained.

Chancellor Merkel was speaking of a matter that is within the remit of the German Federal Government itself, that is, how the rules of the German stock market were impacting adversely and in an improper way on German financial arrangements. The question of stopping short selling is a matter for the German Government without reference to anyone else. I was not given advance notice of the Chancellor's comments. In matters as sensitive as this one would not expect advance notice in any event. These are matters within the regulation of each domestic financial market.

With regard to the other remark made by Chancellor Merkel, it is important that people read both the full content and context of what she had to say. She spoke in the context of a political debate in the Bundestag, where she was seeing support from the German Parliament and taxpayers for collective action to support the euro. She was making the point that the absence of collective action in these matters can lead to speculators seeking to identify weakness or diversity of opinion in order to destabilise the currency against the common interest. She was emphasising the need for collective action. Germany, as we know, is the main contributor to the mechanisms that have been devised to assist the euro. To portray Chancellor Merkel as in some way less than supportive of the euro is very wide of the mark. There is obviously concern in Germany over the over the way in which German taxpayers view their country's contribution. That is obviously a domestic political consideration that the Chancellor must deal with herself. Germany and Chancellor Merkel have been very supportive of the need to act collectively on behalf of the currency.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Government reconsider its position of support for the proposal from the European Commission that draft national budgets be submitted to Brussels for scrutiny and peer review by other member states? Surely this is a further significant erosion of sovereignty in regard to budgetary and other fiscal matters and only further centralises the institutionalisation of what have heretofore been the independently assessed needs of each member state. As the Taoiseach knows very well, we warned against such developments in the course of the two debates on the Lisbon treaty.

Does the Taoiseach not agree that the Commission proposal will mean adherence to the Stability and Growth Pact and that this will outweigh the importance of citizens' rights to health, education and decent employment? Does he agree we will ultimately witness people and public services suffering more and that there will be further erosion of critical decision-making in regard to all these factors, as demonstrated recently, particularly in Greece? Will the Taoiseach not reconsider the Government's position and regard what is now proposed as the thin end of the wedge leading to a serious attack on the sovereignty of Irish citizens?

Will the Government not use its opportunity within the European Union to take to task, in a very serious and concerted way, the Israeli Government, the Israeli state, for the ongoing crimes against the people of Palestine for which it is responsible? I have urged this previously. Has the Taoiseach not noted the recent confirmation we have seen that the Israeli Government once sought to sell nuclear knowledge or weapons expertise to the then apartheid regime in South Africa and that the circumstances of the Israeli state give rise to real concern-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is this culminating in a question?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The second focus of my two-part question concerns why the Government supported so enthusiastically Israeli membership of the OECD. Does the Taoiseach not believe that is a golden opportunity to bring to task on the international stage the outrageous record of the Israeli Government and state?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will deal with one of the Deputy's questions, the one relevant to the questions tabled, which concern what was decided upon at the last European Council meeting and the agenda for the next one. I fundamentally disagree with Deputy Ó Caoláin's analysis that the proposals for the better co-ordination of economic policies represent in some way a diminution of our sovereignty. We live in an era of interdependence. We have taken on obligations as well as rights in joining the single currency and great benefits have derived to the country from the establishment of the euro and our membership of it. The biggest impetus for economic advancement in this country over the past 25 years was the establishment of the Single Market and, the follow on from that, which was the establishment of a single currency in which to trade in that market. For a country like ours, which exports 95% of what it produces, anything that improves our access to those markets and avoids the transaction costs of converting from one currency to another and the improved and increased transparency that provides for pricing greatly outweighs any disadvantages.

The other premise of the Deputy's question was that peer review is new and is to our disadvantage. In a single currency area of 16 independent sovereign states, the need for co-ordination of economic policy is fundamental. The establishment of the European Central Bank has been fundamental. I ask the Deputy to contemplate in the context of the crisis we have been seeking to manage over the past two years where the resources would reside in this State to meet the resources we have been able to obtain from the ECB in dealing with the funding mechanism and the funding requirements of this economy over the past 24 months. If we had our own currency, does he suggest that in the aftermath of the international financial crisis we would have the resources to withstand the impact of that? I am afraid he is totally mistaken if that is what he believes. The unfortunate example that we have of Iceland should remind him of the importance of avoiding isolation in the matter. If one was to take the Deputy's analysis, it is probably a greater guarantee of the loss of sovereignty than the retention of it.

There is a need clearly within the auspices of the Stability and Growth Pact, which was revised in recent years, to have situations were pre-emptive or preventative measures can be taken rather than subsequent corrective ones. Where excess deficit procedures at the moment offer verbal and written warnings and ultimate sanctions, they may well prove too late, particularly when one has had the impact of the financial crisis on public debt that every country has had to contend with as a result of what we have seen in the past number of years.

If, as I agree, it is also about the need to maintain public services on a sustainable basis, one cannot put forward a sustainable case for the retention of public services if one is running deficits of 10% or 12%. One has to bring one's public finances back into order to protect public services to the greatest extent possible and to provide a means by which in better times in the economic cycle we can once again, as we did in the past, greatly increase resources in the context of personnel, material and money for these services.

That is my strong view about seeking to portray this as a loss of sovereignty. It is a fundamental fact that we share sovereignty in many areas as a member of the EU, much to the advantage of the country. Any objective analysis of how the country has developed, regardless of the problems we face now, is that our best prospects are as part of an integrated European economy rather than seeking to suggest that a free trade area between independent sovereign states will provide us with the prospects or opportunities we have obtained in the past and we hope to create in the future.

I do not agree with the premise that lies behind the questions. The objective evidence does not support the contentions made.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are clearly going to have to differ.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a final supplementary. We have spent a considerable amount of time on this question.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Only in the fullness of time when we shall see the outcome will the Taoiseach come to accept the fears that I have expressed in this regard, which are shared by many people. This is not about the euro, as much of his response suggested, but rather about the matter I raised, namely, the European Commission requirement now-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A final supplementary, please, Deputy.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

------that we submit our draft national budgets for scrutiny within the European Union, and by other member states. Just watch where that train will go to. I believe it will not be a happy place for the people of Ireland.

The Taoiseach did not respond at all to the second matter I raised, although the question referred to the recent Council meeting and the forthcoming meeting. I asked whether the Taoiseach would not use the opportunity afforded the Irish Government to raise the situation in relation to the Israeli Government's behaviour in the Middle East, namely, its continued aggression towards the Palestinian people, and will he-------

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This matter is not included under this question.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it is incorporated into it. This is about the issues the Taoiseach and the Government representatives are prepared to raise in the context of the European Council. I believe it is critically important, particularly given the Taoiseach's previous responses on this issue, and-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will have to submit a separate parliamentary question on this matter, if he wishes to pursue it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----the Government's enthusiastic support for Israeli membership of the OECD. In conclusion, is the Taoiseach prepared to join this Deputy in commending Members of this House who have embarked today on a flotilla, a rescue mission, to the people of the Gaza Strip, leaving the shores of Ireland? Deputy Chris Andrews from the Taoiseach's party and Deputy Aonghus Ó Snodaigh of Sinn Féin have embarked on that flotilla of mercy to the Palestinian people.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Caoláin is drifting from this set of questions and their content.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Taoiseach, at least, join me in wishing them and those involved in this international mission-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, we are going to have to move on. We are really getting away from the content of-----

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is too bad if the Ceann Comhairle is uncomfortable with it, as he so often is. That is the whole point about difference.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not mind the Deputy submitting a parliamentary question, at the appropriate time.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Others will have different views and will present different viewpoints.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, and we respect all those.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am asking the Taoiseach whether he is prepared to join me in commending both Deputies and wishing their mission success.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of Israel and Palestine will not be raised at the next Council meeting. It is not on the agenda and it was not discussed at the last Council meeting. For those reasons, I believe this is irrelevant to the questions before me.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has the opportunity to put this on the agenda.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just explained that the agenda has been outlined. The Foreign Ministers deal with issues relating to the Middle East on an ongoing basis. It was envisaged when Mr. Van Rompuy took over the job that perhaps, at one of the European Councils during the course of the year, part of the meeting would be devoted to some foreign policy issues. I presume it would arise in that context, as part of an agreed agenda. When a President of the Council is appointed to run and set the agenda for the Council, this or that will not arise under "any other business". That is not the way it works, but there are other Council formations where those issues are a continuing part of the agenda. Questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs as to where any of those dossiers lie at the moment, will elicit the appropriate information, but this is not relevant for these questions. To suggest that it is, is disingenuous.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a serious matter. The onus is on the Taoiseach to raise the issue, but he has refused, repeatedly.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just explained to the Deputy-----

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ó Caoláin, please allow the Taoiseach to speak, without interruption.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have just explained to the Deputy. In an effort to be helpful, of course we wish the return of both Deputies to the House after their journey to Palestine. Of course we all commend the work of all organisations, NGOs, governments and others who are assisting the people of Gaza on an ongoing basis. They are enduring tremendous hardship, particularly in the aftermath of the attacks that took place there some time ago. The House is united in expressing that sentiment. However, it does not mean the subject is relevant to the questions we are dealing with.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government considered the moneys given to Anglo Irish Bank to be an investment, but the European Commission reclassified it as spending. The Government recently stated that it might be necessary to put a further €10 billion into the bank over the coming years.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This sounds like a question for the Minister for Finance.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know, but it is to do with the reclassification of the Government's contribution to Anglo Irish Bank as spending rather than investment. The Government recently said it might have to give another €10 billion to Anglo. Given that the Commission has already classified such a transfer as spending, what are the implications for our budget deficit if a similar reclassification occurs? Does the Taoiseach consider this to have implications for Government budgetary strategy in terms of further spending reductions or taxation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I respectfully suggest this is a supplementary question not contemplated by the questions tabled. It is unfair on other Deputies who stick to supplementaries that are relevant to the question for me to answer questions that are not within the purview of the questions tabled. It only encourages people to decide to ask whatever supplementaries they wish regardless of the question being discussed. I do not wish to be discourteous.

I will not enter into speculation on the specifics of the matter, but I will address the general point about the reclassification of the moneys that were provided to Anglo Irish Bank. The markets have factored in that this is a once-off payment to the bank; it is not a recurring item on the accounts of the Government. In other words, this year it increased the deficit, but it is not a recurring part of the deficit. Markets take this into account when they consider our underlying deficit. When the reclassification occurred, it did not have an adverse effect on the Government's status in international bond markets because it was understood for what it was. However the transfer is classified - whether it has the original intended classification or the new one - it obviously adds to the overall debt. The fact that it was reclassified meant it became part of the deficit equation, but it is not a recurring part of the deficit.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept the Taoiseach's point that the markets do not regard this money as part of our recurring deficit. What is his understanding of how the Commission views it in terms of the targets we must meet to bring the deficit back to 3% of GDP? It is the Commission's intention to include the money given to Anglo Irish Bank and other banks as part of this calculation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The point I am making is that the money that was paid into Anglo Irish Bank, which was part of our deficit this year, will not be part of the figure next year. It was a payment to the bank for this year.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What if there is another payment next year? Will that be included in the calculation?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was the Commission that insisted on the reclassification, so it understands the implication in terms of its addition to the current deficit figure. However, it also accepts that it is a non-recurring part of the deficit. It is a question of where it goes in the accounts. The underlying point is that we hope to reduce the deficit to 10.5% or 10.75% this year. Moving into next year, the Commission will want to see whether there has been a €3 billion adjustment. That is the underlying point the Commission has made, that if there are further payments or where they are reclassified, they would be dealt with in the same way.